The Ethicist from April 27 NY Times: modifying recordings for college apps

College Majors Music Majors
1

<p>This subject has come up several times but I thought I’d put the Ethicist’s column from last Sunday in a new thread. (Apologies if it has already been posted–I searched first. I also don’t know how to quote in boxes so I just pasted it. Hope this is doesn’t infringe copyright agreements…) I don’t see the point of falsifying a voice (love the title of the column!), as it only wastes everyone’s time. Real life will out.</p>

<p>The Ethicist
Singing Falsetto</p>

<p>By RANDY COHEN
Published: April 27, 2008</p>

<p>I produced a recording for a singing student’s application to a college’s professional music program. Her singing was passable but not great. Her mother asked, “Is there anything you can do with your equipment to make her voice better?” Computer technology enables me to make even the worst singer sound professional, but if I employ it, do I defraud the college? — S.H., CONNECTICUT</p>

<p>You may help the student put her best foot (best throat?) forward; you may not abet deception. Simply recording her with a good microphone in a muted studio will make her sound better than taping her over the phone in a sawmill.</p>

<p>But other techniques are more problematic. For example, to electronically alter the pitch of a note falsifies a basic fact, presenting her as singing what she did not (and perhaps cannot) sing. That is where to draw the line.</p>

<p>Admittedly, it is a hazy line. (Is it legit to compile several imperfect takes into one flawless version?) You might gain clarity by considering not only the acts of the producer but also the assumptions of the consumer. If you believe that an admissions officer will be misled, then you’ve been a little too state-of-the-art.</p>

<p>Ideally, schools would provide technology guidelines (although enforcement would be tough) or ask producers to disclose their methods. While awaiting those reforms, be comforted that admissions officers are a savvy bunch, and that this recording is only one element in an application. Many professional programs require an in-person audition. This does not justify deceit but does mitigate its consequences.</p>

<p>UPDATE: S. H. gave the student two CDs. Both employed sophisticated audio techniques, including editing together several performances, but on only one did he digitally correct the pitch so that the student seemed to hit notes she had not. He left it to her to decide which CD to submit. He says she chose the pitch-corrected version and has not yet heard from the school.</p>

2

<p>This is called cheating, and it was not only sanctioned by the parent, but requested by her. I am kind of shocked.</p>

3

<p>Isn’t it sad that it really occurs to parents to doctor their kids’ audition CD’s? I am wondering if we will soon see schools doing away with the prescreen recording.</p>

4

<p>There was a long thread earlier in the year where one of the student members acknowledged unapologetically for editing his screening CD. The parental concensus was that it was not allowed and unethical, but it leaves me with the persistent feeling that this is being done more and more as it gets easier and easier to do. Hard to blame the engineer who is not signing anything. But for most screenings, the kids have to acknowledge and swear that the CD is unedited or enhanced in any way. This will put the honest student at a disadvantage in the long run since the note perfect and pitch perfect performance is usually just a dream for most 17-18 year olds.</p>

5

<p>This scares me, because as a junior who will soon be auditioning for voice departments, I am afraid that the surge of these sorts of dishonest students will cause institutions to do away with recorded auditions.</p>

6

<p>Some schools have started requiring a video shot from a single camera angle precisely because it is more difficult to seamlessly splice together bits and pieces than it is with audio only. This will make the whole process even more expensive and time-consuming than it already is. </p>

<p>I have also spoken with teachers at colleges who are aware of what goes on and say that they take whatever they hear on a self-produced recording with a large grain of salt.</p>

7

<p>Whenever we have recorded, the guidelines specified unedited, so that is what we did. I can recall doing two or three takes and picking the best take of the bunch to keep, however. These were recordings for admission to summer programs and not colleges/conservatories.</p>

8

<p>We picked the best of 3 takes, but I’m quite sure that many students use professional studios and feel justified in ‘splicing’ to make the most perfect recording from all the takes. I doubt that many use the pitch fixing, but wouldn’t be surprised to hear that some did.</p>

9

<p>For those that haven’t seen it, the thread stringfollies mentioned is here <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/music-major/417145-mistakes-music-cd.html?highlight=recording[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/music-major/417145-mistakes-music-cd.html?highlight=recording&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>There will always be a number of people who attempt to game the system.</p>

<p>The reality is that the quailities of the performer must match those demonstrated on a recording. The truth surfaces eventually.</p>

10

<p>For some things, though, the line isn’t so obvious. Like adding reverb, for example. The change in the sound is like the change you could get anyway by recording in a recital hall instead of a really dead room, but does it count as cheating, since you are slightly altering the tone? It’s can be a hard decision to make.</p>

11

<p>No, the line is obvious. There should be no editing or enhancement. If you want reverb, find a hall for the recording. Here is what Juilliard says about it on their audition requirements info - </p>

<p>“Recordings must be genuinely performed by applicants and may
not be edited, nor should any affects such as “reverb” be added.”</p>

<p>Here is what Indiana says -</p>

<p>“Your recording should be produced without any artificial enhancement such as echo or electronic reverb.”</p>

12

<p>So, if you have the money, go to a professional studio on ten different days, and do five takes on each day. Use the best take. That’s not cheating, right?</p>

13

<p>That’s not cheating.</p>

14

<p>My point is that even without any suspicion of cheating, the schools have to take these recordings with a grain of salt.</p>

15

<p>They can’t take them with a grain of salt since they’re making audition decisions based solely on them. I do think that they have heard enough of them to be able to “hear” through a lot of the garbage. The ones who cheat or have to have 20 takes to get a decent cut probably won’t have much chance of pulling off a great audition. I think that poor recordings do keep some people from getting auditions who sound better than the recording represents.</p>

16

<p>Cartera –</p>

<p>I know you’re right. My son was accepted into 4 great music schools (with funding) from live auditions. He was prescreened out from one and not accepted into several summer programs based on the same repertoire on a recording (unedited, of course!).</p>

17

<p>Ah, but they can take recordings with a grain of salt if some come from a trusted source or if they have a combination of live and recorded auditions in the same round. It is usually the case that prescreening rounds will consist entirely of recordings made by applicants or someone that they hire. Later rounds can be a mix of self-produced recordings, real-time recordings of live auditions made by an employee of the school, and live auditions directly in front of the judges. </p>

<p>Additionally, some types of editing mistakes that go entirely unnoticed by most listeners are easily detected if you know exactly what to listen for. It takes some practice to make a really clean audio edit.</p>